tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 23, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
also and coulter talks about her new book. host: good morning. the house convened for morning our at noon. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. we focus on south carolina, six days after nine black churchgoers were left dead. attention is turned to the confederate flag. yesterday, south carolina governor nikki haley called for the removal of that life --
flag. this morning we are asking our viewers to weigh in. if you support the removal, let us know (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it (202) 748-8001. a special line for south carolina residents (202) 748-8002. good tuesday morning. this story making the headlines of papers around the u.s. and across the world. the editorial that goes with it time to furl the confederate flag.
you can see the u.s. senators in the picture on the front page of "the charleston post and courier." a bipartisan group of state and national officials joining in that announcement. south carolina's governor: remove the confederate flag, is the headline. over to the houston chronicle self conflicted over confederate past. and the headline of "the washington post," some see hate, some see pride and some just see a t-shirt. to our viewers this morning, do you support the removal of the confederate battle flag? those numbers are on the screen.
yesterday, south carolina's governor nikki haley, here is what she had to say. gov. haley: we respect freedom of expression. for those who want to fly the flag on private property, no one will stand in your way. the statehouse is different. the events of the past week call upon us to look at this in a different way. 15 years ago, south carolina came together in a bipartisan way. today we are here in a moment of unity to say it is time to remove the flag from the capitol grounds. host: that was south carolina governor nikki haley yesterday. "the post and courier" out of charleston has been on top of this since it happened.
joining us now is statehouse reporter cynthia rodin. legislatively, what will it take for the flag to be removed? guest: that is still being debated. they are trying to figure out how to do it. both chambers technically adjourn on june 4. they are currently in a special session and they are trying to figure out if they just amend the session to allow them to discuss how to take down the flag. then they can potentially file a bill that will allow them to discuss it in a committee and it will probably take 2-3 weeks. host: the post and courier has been tracking it from every
angle through the legislature. walk us through the early reactions you have seen. guest: we called every single member, we divided them up. i called eight to 10, only three to four actually answered my calls and everybody was in the upstate. the more conservative area and they were in flavor -- favor of keeping it up. as we noted lot of did not call us back and it may be because they were not ready to discuss it. i will be back in columbia today and i will be sure to ask everybody who i run into that we did not get an answer from, to see where they stand. host: just eight members in the house that said no according to removing the flag. 40 numbers have said yes and many have yet to respond.
nikki haley called this an issue for south carolina. is there concern that outside groups will descend on south carolina amid this discussion? guest: there has been some criticism of outside groups coming to call for the removal of the flag. it seems like a lot of the people will feel like it represents history and their ancestors will probably be descending on south carolina to encourage it to remain up there. we will have to see where it stands. i attended the rally on saturday and there will be another to call for its removal. it didn't seem like there was much of a debate. there was one person who went around kind of encouraging it to
the left out but other than that there was not much of a back and forth going on. host: before we let you go, the president and vice president affected to be in charleston on friday. what do we know? guest: we don't know much yet. i was planning on attending the funeral and all i have been told so far that i need credentials to attend. there has been some frustration expressed by lawmakers who say that some who would have tried to attend cannot. they welcome the president but it will make logistically things more difficult. host: we appreciate you joining us this morning and we will check back in later in the week. host: we are asking our viewers
to weigh in on nikki haley yesterday calling for the removal. special lines for those who support, oppose and south carolina residents we want to hear. william, good morning. you are on "the washington journal." caller: how are you doing. it definitely needs to come down. that flag has nothing to do about the civil war. it was put up as a rebellion against civil rights. some white guy stood in front of the white house waved a big conservative flag, in front of the first african-american president. that right there tells you what the flag stands for. i will give governor haley credit, i did not vote for her
but she earned my respect by having the courage and leadership to step forward and say that enough is enough. sorry for the people who died in charleston, it is a shame. i hope they rest in peace, but we have a lot more work to do the flag needs to come down. host: as the debate plays out do you have any intention of going to columbia? guest: -- caller: i will be there today. host: what will you do? caller: to show my support. my grandmother and my mother -- i was born in 1959, so i did not have a chance to experience that. but as i learn more about what it stands for, i was one of
those who thought that flag was part of the civil war, but it is a totally different flag than the civil war. that flag stands for hate toward minorities against people who were trying to basic civil rights in this country. him. the team had to go away to seattle to play instead of playing at home because of the flag. it is time for it to change. host: what do you expect to find at the civil war memorial where the confederate flag flies? caller: the people that will be there? host: yes, what do you expect to see? caller: i expect to see many different groups of people. black, white, hispanics, what ever you may have.
this is a new day. the past is the past. you have people that want to move forward and it is time to change. i have friends that i have known for 30 years or 40 years. in this small time, we all get along. that is what it is about. we have our issues. we have come a long ways since south carolina. and this guy who did the killing only lived like 30 minutes from the town i live in. we pray for the nine victims and we hope that mother emanuel will heal. host: that is william and south carolina, headed columbia today. staying in south carolina,
michael is on our line. did i get your name right? caller: yes. the flag doesn't make any difference to me either way but let me make a few points. the first point is, the politicians don't give a damn about the flag either way. they have stuck their finger in the air and they think that they will make political points by hollering to take it down. let me tell you, if they want to take the flag down, that is fine but don't stand and say to me that all of a sudden they have had a change of heart. if nikki haley want to the flag
down why she have that part of her platform? it is like saying that i am pro-life and all of a sudden i change my attitude and i am pro-abortion -- the politicians make me sick. they really do. host: do you think that the shooting in charleston and the pictures that have emerged of the accused shooter with the confederate flag and the website and his writings -- do you think that changed things? caller: that changed things politically. let me tell you, deep down, it hasn't changed a thing. those who hate for the sake of hating, they still remain just
as full of hate as they were before wednesday and they will remain -- let me tell you i followed martin luther king and i am a white south carolinian, but martin luther king said, let me judge a person by their character, not the color of their skin. that is the way that it should be. that is the way that it should be. caller: -- host: eric is up next from cedartown, georgia. you are on "washington journal." caller: this is a problem. it started with the constitution. the confederates were allowed to run rampant in the south.
one man's junk is another man's treasure. this flag represents treason to the united states. the constitution was never there to protect other -- dred scott -- there is no right that a white man has to respect throughout the history of the united states. you have these freedom fighters overseas, mr. mccain and them, they love to go provide weapons and fight but the reason they don't support the freedom fighters and he doesn't support martin luther king's birthday -- it was their parents and great-grandparents who committed these atrocities. i would like to and with this, you are overseas fighting isis, these terrorist groups or whatever. the threat in the united states against african-americans, our
enemies are the neo-nazis. the racist white supremacists and the crooked and corrupt police. we have no threat from isis among black america. these people flying these flags we need the fbi to investigate these guys to see what are their intentions? i am from the south. we need the police to start investigating these people these neo-nazi racists groups and find out what are their plans what is the meaning? they are all around me and my kids and grandkids. i want to be protected. we don't want peace atrocities committed against african-americans. we built this country from the dirt. we are dirt farmers. it is -- that also may be mad, these people were praying in this
church when this man was standing there with this smirk on his face. it is a time to forgive -- now is not the time to forgive, it is the time to be mad. you never see this from white people. white people feel satisfied if they are treated like they were treated. indians, african-americans -- they feel like they have been treated equal. thank you. host: james is on the line for those who oppose the removal of the flag. good morning. caller: can you hear me? i don't know where to start. i woke up and had my coffee, but i am hearing all of this stuff and they are talking about south carolina and now they are talking about mississippi.
i cannot imagine taking our emblem off of our flag. it has been there a long time. i hear what the blacks are saying and i think they are wrong about it. i think that the things that they are doing now is what causes this trouble. they have their rights, a have had their rights since 1965. just go on and let us keep our flag. when lincoln sent the troops down, they raped our women burned our houses, killed our livestock and our men were off trying to hold them back, but they still come on. they tore up everything in the south. we finally got it built back. they talk about general bedford forrest in memphis they wanted
to put him in a ditch somewhere. just because they took over the politics i don't know, it might all straight and out in the long run, but right now they on to leave it alone. it was a shame what happened to their people in south carolina, but they will always have that it seems like. that to just go on and let things be. i have a lot to say but like i say, i had my coffee and i appreciate you letting me speak. host: that is james in mississippi. he said, the debate happening over the mississippi state flag. philip dunn said that the confederate emblem on the state's official flag has to go. we must always member our past but it does not mean we must let it define us. he said, as a christian i
believe that our state flag has become a point of offense and we need to have it removed. getting a lot of attention in the wake of nikki haley's comments yesterday. members of congress tweeting out the reactions. speaker john boehner who wrote i commend governor nikki haley in their efforts to remove the confederate flag from statehouse grounds. a tweet from democrats in south carolina this notion that it is about flag that people lost their lives under is a myth. it is a flag of rebellion. lindsey graham releasing his own statement about the south carolina flag, coming as he stood alongside south carolina governor nikki haley.
as part of that statement he talked about his belief that it needs to come down there in other tweets as well. john boehner showing you more tweets throughout the first 45 minutes. south carolina, carl is up next. good morning. are you with us? you have to stay by your phone. we will go to wayne in richmond virginia on the line for those who oppose. caller: i was listening to the caller who just held in who didn't have his coffee. am i still on? the way he talked he said he didn't talk too good because he didn't have his coffee. i am 55 years old. that flag is in virginia and is on people's arsenal are pretty hairy that is fine.
-- is on people's personal property, that is fine. but he's talking about rape? we were raped for 500 years. i am in touch with my history. i love this country. right now we have a serious album in virginia with police -- serious problem in virginia with police. i have had that flag put on my car. i remember somebody things that were not in the media. the older blacks told the younger blacks about the history , but we could not talk about it. that is why the younger blacks were so upset, if they were able to do things after the civil war like own property and go about their business, instead most black people were put into brothels. they didn't get land. we are the most loyal americans in this country. >> you say you want to see it
removed? x i would see it put in a museum or someone's arsenal property. >> this is america and we have rights. i tell you something else. redevelopment housing is where most blacks live. they don't have freedom and they can't even have guns. >> if you are black in the south you cannot have a gun. in virginia and hanover, those are the most evil vengeful police department. i have been beaten by them summary times. i want to still state that this is the greatest country on the face of the planet that we have to fix our problem and you cannot give millions of people amnesty for free or the second time. don't forget we did it under ronald reagan. host: we will be talking again about the immigration debate later in the show. we will be joined by ann coulter and her debate about the
immigration debate. stick around for that statement -- segment of "the washington journal." i want to point to the washington post, the pectoral history of the evolution of the confederate flag. from the first official flag of the confederacy to the development of the battle flag and how it became as it is seen today. we want to hear mostly from our collars this morning. on the line for those that would like to see it removed from the statehouse grounds. good morning. caller: i would just like to commend governor haley and all of the south carolina representatives that stood by her to take the flag down. one thing that i would like to say is all of those southern states that would like to have that rebel flag on their government
property are they willing to have the flag up there to represent reparations for all of those that love the rebel flag and someone gets killed in the name of that flag. are you willing, all of you that want to flag on government property, and what of your rebels -- one of your rebels that want to carry the flag and kill black people in the name of that flag, is that what you are saying? that is what happened. somebody killed in the name of that rebel flag and i don't like that and it needs to come down. thank you. host: here is a little bit more from that statement that she made yesterday in south carolina. [video clip] >> 150 years after the end of the civil war, the time has come. there will be some in our state
who see this as a sad moment iris check that, but -- i respect that, but whether it is on the statehouse grounds were in a museum, a flag will always be a part of the soil of south carolina. but this is a moment in which we can say that flag does not present the future of our great state. the murderer locked up in charleston said he hoped his actions would start a race war. we have an opportunity to show that not only was he wrong but that the opposite is happening. my hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward in harmony and honor the blessed souls now in heaven. [applause] host: in this piece this morning in "the washington times," governor nikki haley surrendered to the mob joining the command
to send the confederate flag to the dust of history. the republican national committee always eager to cower in the face of controversy praised the governor. dylann roof, a young man with a distorted soul with hatred in his heart and armed with determination would still have satisfied his sick urge to kill. either -- evil will find a way, the flag had nothing to do with it. blake is up next in leland, mississippi. just turned on the tv and talk to the phone. caller: i am supporting the taking down of the flag. i've taken the necessary steps in the town of leland, i have
talking -- talked to the state council about removing the flag several months ago and of course they are for it because it speaks for everything they have ascribed to. it is a symbol of hate. germany has banned swastikas and what do they use and replacement? the ruble -- in replacement? the rebel flag. america is the best country in the world but you all care more about immigrants and white americans than african americans. you gave our wealth away to your cousins. your immigrant cousins and you are constantly doing it. you're not investing in our future and the state capital behind you? african-americans built that. the white house? african-americans built that. you are not giving us any credit and you want to keep going on and said porting -- supporting
your white supremacist way of life. the whole world is watching and they are saying this is how to treat african-americans. you don't have to give them any respect. you don't want to give us a flag? we know we are not getting reparations. you know we are not getting anything else. you think anything given to us is a lost on your end. but this is something we have earned with our blood, sweat and souls. we don't have anything because it was taken from us. in my opinion, if you don't have land under your feet that is yours, you are a stray dog. whether injection or african or whatever -- whether egyptian, or african, or whatever. host: steve writes that whether the flag represents proslavery
traders on a losing side. then james, i don't see racial reconciliation happening in my lifetime. and william says the confederate flag is a flag of oppression. we want to hear from our viewers this morning as we are taking your thoughts on the removal of the flag over the statehouse grounds that flies over a civil war memorial. carl is waiting . caller: good morning. i was on earlier and i got cut off the cell phone, but i'm happy that she decided to try to work anyway to take a flag down. i am mixed on it in a way because in a way, as black people we almost need the flag so we will always member where we are at.
but i love the comments that came from a gentleman a few minutes ago who said, we are black. we are trying to figure out where we are from, since everything is taken, it's why we came up with the name african-american. we had to be from somewhere. the more i think about it -- i am 62 years old. i have to go back and realize myself that, i am what they told me that i was and i am a regular old colored boy. that means i was mixed with the white race and really, when a person doesn't even have a country. a lot of people are never going to appreciate us here. host: let me ask you. there was a 2013 winthrop university poll that found 64%
of south carolina residents said it should continue to fly on the statehouse grain -- grounds where it currently sits. only about one third said it should be taken down. do you think those views have changed? caller: it might change some. but -- we are really in a mixed situation. i am 62 and it is amazing -- and was in the military 22 years -- that you can see people that don't even respect you for being an american and everything and that is all we are trying to do. a lot of people never owned slaves. a slave was a luxury item.
a poor person could not own a slave. i understand people wanting to be happy for their granddaddy fighting for something. but at the same time, even j jesus let us know there is a time and place for everything and a time and place to move on and a time and place to help each other. it doesn't matter what color they are, that is the weight we will have to try to live and member that we are responsible for ourselves. host: that is carl in charleston, south carolina. dawn is waiting. your thoughts? caller: i think they should take the flag down. it should have been taken down many years ago. it should never have been put up in the first place. i find it a big embarrassment.
it gives the impression that south carolina is full of white racists. the majority of the white citizens in this state are not racist. i work in a diverse workplace. we have a diverse amount of customers, and there has been a lot of discussion in the last week. i feel like it is embarrassing and it gives the wrong impression. it is a symbol of hate and it needs to come down. host: that is dawn in south carolina. that special line for south carolina residents but also for those who support the removal and oppose the removal. we will take your calls for the next 10 minutes or so. the debate taking place in south carolina. the washington post interviewing lead like, a south carolina
senator with the flag over his office. he said we won't take things out of context just because of an atrocity. the clan used to burn crosses but nobody inks of that as a hate symbol. i am proud of the history that i don't think any reasonable person would make an argument for slavery. the men who defended the south were just trying to defend their homes. john in district heights, maryland you are next for those who support the removal? caller: i definitely support the removal of the flag. one of the first scholars talked about the politicians. people in this nation need to look at the politicians. without them pulling the games that they pull, you have just as many poor whites in south carolina as you do blacks.
the jobs have left a nation because of the politicians. when something comes along, they jump on this. all of this is a diversion to keep the american people's minds away from the serious issues such as health care, jobs and education. for the shooting take place and to come up like this it is really sad. you will have people crazy like this kid will be justified. one thing that i don't understand -- i am a retired police officer. in 1968, there were no guns on the street. to see a gun in washington the seat was a rare thing. in the early 80's, the guns flooded in leica broken down. -- flooded in like broken dam. host: do you think that the gun control debate has been set aside?
is it something that politicians should be talking more about? caller: because of the gun lobby. the lobby has that congress wrapped up and tangled up into the money. this is what most americans do not understand. this is why i am trying to understand how is it that the poor whites who think they have something, have something because they are white? what they fail to remember or understand is that the civil war didn't come to help them, it came to help the rich landowner keep his property which was lacked people -- black people. so he got the or ignorant white folk to fight for him to kill him keep his property. so what great tradition or legacy does that flag have? like vietnam didn't know rich
white boys go to vietnam. bush, when he attacked iraq, who did he take? the national guard and the reserve. who are they? the poor whites. i don't understand how they can say they have such an illustrious history when they have been used and abused, just like black people, but not to the standard that we have. the politicians and lindsey graham, all of them wrapped up in the military industrial complex. the american rifle association. all of these entities control our politicians. caller: that is john in district heights, maryland. if you want to hear more about the gun rights debate we will be talking about it in our next segment, joined by colin goddard. before we leave this segment some news out of washington and here in maryland as well.
two politicians announcing that they have cancer. senator angus king announced that he would undergo surgery later this week to remove prostate cancer. this is the second occurrence. and the former maine governor diagnosed with malignant a la noma 30 years ago -- malignant melanoma 30 years ago. and governor larry hogan announcing he had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. he made the surprise announcement that he has be sell non-hodgkin's lymphoma. i will make the same determent that i have made to overcome every obstacle i have faced in my life. the washington post with a story about the republican who would
take over if larry hogan would not be able to fill out his term. several politicians and members of congress tweeting out their reaction to that news. from both politicians. larry hogan and senator angus king. a tweet from senator elizabeth warren wishing quick recovery to senator angus king. your independent spirit will carry you through tough days and will be with you every step of the way. representative donna edwards tweeting i wish governor hogan every ounce of strength for a successful recovery. all of maryland will be with him. we want to get back to your calls on the question of removing the confederate battle flag. the five minutes left.
you can call back in our last segment today. kathryn is on the line for those who support the removal of the flag. caller: i really do support the removal. it is a symbol of being rebellious. i happened to catch in the afternoon a program called "the dukes of hazard." when my children were little we used to watch it. i happened to catch a segment yesterday and i said, holy cow. they have the confederate flag on top of that car and they are rebellious. i know that they always end up helping somebody, but that flag has to go. my children grew up in a white area, white this, white that, but i support the black people. they have struggled immensely.
i don't know, i think that flag has to go. it is a sign of rebellion. take it out. host: up next in st. charles missouri. on the line for those who oppose the removal of the flag. go ahead. caller: i don't think they ought to remove it. a lot of people are getting ridiculous about it. i think they need to keep it up. i don't think it is a good idea to take it down. host: what do you mean when you say people are getting ridiculous? caller: they are making it into a racist thing and it is not racist. host: what is your experience with that flag growing up in missouri? caller: my grandfather was a confederate.
i don't think it would be a good idea to remove it. host: that is from st. charles, missouri. barbara, you are online for those who support the removal. caller: i did live in south carolina. i went there after my marriage. i am very familiar with the state. i am divorced from that man but my adult children still visit their relatives there. i want to remind people that this flag was a title flag. it was designed to use in the war. it is no longer appropriate because the war is over. that is one objective reason. it was a losing war for the south. why did the state continue to display a symbol -- it is a symbol of after they lost --
continued affiants after they lost the battles. racists always deny that they are racists. some say that slavery was a long time ago and it is no longer relevant. they still say that the flag is relevant and it is ok to keep flying it. i want to say something about this mass murderer. i will not call him by name. just imagine, if a civil war took place in england, and the side that lost cap waiting their fl -- cap wade -- kept waving their flag. surrender means giving up your battle flag. we need a change. it would not apply in battles between countries, but the victor in a civil war should stipulate in the surrender documents that the losing flag
is forever banned for public display. host: how much do you think the civil war continues to hang over american society today? caller: i know from my personal experience in my ex-husband's family, they continue to fight that war and continue to hate losing that war so much that they hate black people, former slaves and their descendents and anybody who supports the union. they really put it above the american flag. host: our last color in this segment but we will be revisiting at the end of this program. up next, colin goddard will join us to talk about the gun control debate in the wake of the charleston, south carolina shootings.
later, ann coulter will be with us to talk about her new book. first, on monday, sarah kate ellis delivered remarks at the national press club. she discussed the supreme court's upcoming decision. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> there are three ways that the ruling can come down. one is affirmative, which is yes. if that happens it will be a great celebration, but we will be back to work on monday or the following a because there is still -- following day because there is still much work to be done. number two, the states that do not have marriage equality will have to recognize marriage equality from other states. that is a half win.
the third way is that we get a no altogether, which means we will have to do a lot of work in the future. anyway in which they come in, there is still a lot of work that we have left to do. at glaad we just commissioned a poll of over 2000 americans that asks how they feel the lgbt community. it is an understanding of what the culture is out there. we asked on a five-point scale from very comfortable to very uncomfortable. then we asked about situations such as bringing same-sex couples over for a play date, attending same-sex weddings, bringing your kids to a same-sex wedding, finding out a child on your kids sports team is transgender. one of every three americans is very uncomfortable.
when you look closer at those numbers, and you look at the south, it turns out that those level of discomfort go even higher. 10-20 percentage points. when you look at the -- 90% of americans at times are very uncomfortable with the transgender community. host: if you want to watch that entire event you can go to our website. we're joined at our desk for a discussion on the gun control debate following the charleston church shooting, colin goddard. for those who do not know your story, how did you come to work on this issue? guest: from an event that happened when i was in college. an international relations student in virginia tech, one morning in the french class, we
heard loud bangs which we thought was construction and a few minutes later turned into somebody shooting through our door. the most intense situation i have ever experienced. that morning there were 17 people in my french class and i am one of seven people who are still alive. there were 32 people shot and killed and over a dozen others shot and injured and others who were able to escape early. that shooting situation opened my eyes to a world i knew little about. i assumed like most americans that we needed rules to keep guns away from dangerous people and was shocked to learn we don't require a background check on every gun sale. what happened two years later was i witnessed another mass shooting on television. i had not witnessed any in the time in between but april 3 2009, the shooting at the civic center, the news story broke and i watched the whole thing unfold
and thought, this is how the world saw what happened to me and now i am watching it to other people. as much progress as i have made, now there are 13 other families on day one. very similar to what i heard in charleston. all of the progress you think you have made in the recovery that i have had and my family has gone through people are right at the beginning of all of that. it is incredibly disheartening and sad and frustrating. to not do anything about it. host: do you think the gun control debate has been lost in the last six days, or not received as much attention as the confederate flag issue? host: -- guest: i think there boast important issues. we are talking about it. we are trying to make sure that
people know there is something they can do. we just started an effort where each week on wednesday night we will have a prayer call. anyone who wants to join led by family members and survivors. all of this is helping leading up to this weekend. we are encouraging faith leaders and elected officials to have a service about gun violence. about what we can do and come together as a community to get the changes that we so desperately need. this is an ongoing conversation the public wants to have. host: president obama wanting to have this conversation. here is a clip of the president on that event. [video clip] >> i don't think politics makes it less likely that we see gun safety legislation. i remarked that it was very
unlikely that this congress would act. some reporters took this as resignation. i want to be clear i am not resigned. i have faith that we will eventually do the right thing. [applause] i was simply making the point that we have to move public opinion. we have to feel a sense of urgency. ultimately, congress will follow the people. we have to stop being confused about this. at some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. it is not good enough to simply show sympathy. host: in the first comments he talked about saying he showed resignation. what was your reading of his original reaction? guest: i thought his remarks
initially were very on point. you could tell this was a president who was deeply troubled by what happened in charleston, yet he has to step up and address the country about a mass shooting that occurred under his presidency. he a knowledge that there are things we can do that we haven't and a major roadblock which is the majority of legislators in this city. too many policymakers think if they vote for gun measures they will lose the next election. we have not had that many since we started to seek millions of americans wanting to have that. president obama says that we need to move public opinion. public opinion is there. you cannot just say do you support more gun control, but if you go specifically to the solutions available background checks are consistently the vast majority of support.
the question is, how do we get people who will answer that to pick up the phone and called the legislator. you will have my support. that is the basic task that the american public has. to take the energy and the support and bring them into reality. host: we will get into the specifics but our phones are open. if you want to talk to colin goddard, he is a senior policy advocate for gun safety. joseph is up first calling from california on the line for independents. caller: good morning, everybody. i want to make it very clear that everybody who has done these mass killings can pass all of the background checks. nobody that is an ex-con or ex felon has done these mass killings.
only people with clean records. what you are doing is useless. caller: -- guest: i appreciate the comment but i can look at the mass shooting out of milwaukee wisconsin where someone who was prohibited from owning guns because of a domestic violence conviction bypassed the gun stores and background checks entirely purchased a gun online and shot and killed his wife and several people she works with. to the vast majority of americans, they are not killed in mass shooting scenarios. they are killed with the average gun violence that happens every single day. the 32 that are murdered every single day. that is the majority of americans who die from gun violence. public opinion research -- it
shows that background checks are the most common sense step we can take to make sure that guns and dangerous people don't come together. states that do have background checks see fewer women shot by partners, fewer guns traffic -- we have evidence and growing public support that this is something we want to do. host: in the dylann roof shooting, do we know anything about his background or the guns that were used in this? guest: things are still coming in. i don't think we know all the details yet to this was a gun basically given by a father. like i said, to say that we should base our policy on the last incident that happened, those people have already been killed.
what we can do is, how can we coherently and logically do the best we can to keep the next shooting from happening. that is what we should focus on. host: 62 mass shootings from 1982-20 12 and one question they looked at was whether they obtained the weapons legally and in 49, they did obtain them legally and in 12 incidents they did not. the numbers from mother jones that have been crunching the number of mass shootings. viewers want to look those up. let's go to hell and in tennessee, the line for republicans. caller: i am from hendersonville. i lived in pennsylvania and resided in virginia.
there are lots of variables and a lot of things to consider. during the massacre, there were 32 individuals. as a nurse who is a passionate patient advocate for all people is that after the terrible massacre did occur, there was a big article on which one of the counselors, and woman who tried to help the young man that did the terrible killings, she had helped council this young man and she had repeatedly warned virginia tech about the man's mental capabilities. nobody listened to her.
after this article came out, she was fired. the point being that when things do come up, relating to mental health people need to wake up. most people cannot afford to go to a psychologist or psychiatrist. that is another point that needs to be looked at. host: colin goddard, i will let you jump in on that. guest: i am familiar with the incident mentioned. the story in "the times," and the whole situation. what happened was a watershed moment for cap this -- campus safety. before the virginia tech shooting, schools did not have threat assessment teams. members together talking about
students raising flags and how we can properly help the students. that has been a great improvement across the country. it's a matter of funding. people need to put their money where their mouth is and fund these programs and not cut them and support people who need to find a way to get treatment. we need to focus as much vigor in wanting to improve the easy accessibility that we allow for guns with this country. these are all valid points that you bring up. we need to spend equal amount of time at talking about all of them. host: we have lines for democrat viewers and republican viewers. we have a special line for gun owners. align for democrats, neil is waiting. good morning. caller: good morning.
i wanted to express my sincere sympathy to mr. goddard it for what he went through at virginia tech. i would like to make a comment. i think we need to have background checks for every person that would own a firearm. this has to be mandatory. in terms of screening out those who would misuse a firearm, but if you bear with me for a moment i believe the nra that started out looking to promote gun safety and the like has misled and misappropriated the second amendment. if we look at the constitute sin -- constitution, in this section it called for militias to execute the laws of the union and repel invasions.
i've not heard anything about regulating militias within states. this section was put into put them slave -- down slave insurrections. with the last conversation about the confederate flag where are the regulations for militias? once again it, i think the nra has misled individuals on the second amendment. host: first, on the background check issue, where are we on state laws? guest: about six months ago, there were 16 states that required background checks. we saw the state of washington pass by voter initiative background checks on all sales.
over 60% of the public voted for this law. oregon passed it through the legislature. we now have 18 states, a growing number of states realize action is not going to happen in koch -- congress and they can't wait for that. background checks has qualified for the ballot in nevada. the more we can bring this to state legislatures who seem to be more responsive to the will of their constituents and people here in washington dc, we will have continued progress. this issue makes sense. it should happen on all sales, not just some. it's been good progress. host: douglas is in new hampshire on the line for independents. caller: that guy reloaded five times. if one crowd had a gun, they could have shot back.
much like chicago, they have the highest gun crimes. what law. this psycho from killing people? guest: i have heard that myself. if you had a gun you could have shot him. i think that puts the blame on the person getting shot. why didn't you shoot the person you invited into your prayer service? i think that's inappropriate on a basic level. we are not going to shoot our way out of problems with shooting in our country fundamentally. we need to do more to stop that person and that gun from coming together in the first place. background checks on all sales
the solution to gun violence is not more shooting fundamentally. i think we can live in america where we can do better than that. host: president obama wanted commonsense rules like an assault weapons and. how would that work -- ban. how would that work? guest: on a basic level, it makes sense. limiting in some way the firearms and equipment that we make for the military use and then sell to the civilian population, i don't know how to do it. changing what's in the persons and's can reduce the number of people shot. in colorado, this man had a 100 round drama. -- drum.
these cause the shootings to be more lethal. how do we intervene at that point of sale, where the person and the gun come together in the first place. there are many more steps we can take that we have not tried yet as a country. the public is going to have to demand our elected officials look at it. host: what do you say to somebody who says that it's just a way of expressing hate? guest: it shows what happens when someone with a lot of hate and racial bias gets their hands on weapons easily and how much carnage that can cause in a short. -- short time. it could have happened with a knife or a bat, but frankly, as someone who experienced a shooting directly, i would have preferred someone to take down the door with a knife rather than a gun.
it matters what is in their hand. host: don is a gun over in california. good morning. you're on with colin goddard from everytown for gun safety. caller: in switzerland they require somebody to have a rifle and know how to use it. they don't have a lot of problems there. they know they are going to get shot by somebody quickly. there was a shooting in church in south africa. there was a christian in there who had a gun and he fought off and killed a couple of those guys. unlike what those people would do. i also want to say that in virginia and the rest of the country, there need to be more good people with a gun. they will make the coward think twice when he goes to these places.
like what happened in texas they shot the guy quickly. they did not make too much of a big deal about it. more good people with guns, i'm not saying everybody. the cowards will not want to do so much of that damage. host: how do you find those good people with guns? is there a way to try to ensure that the guns that do go out go to those good people? would you support a background check? caller: that is hard to do. what happened to the jews when they took all of their guns away ? that's why we have those guns, to keep the politicians in check. guest: he brings up some interesting points. on switzerland there are several countries around the world that have high rates of gun ownership's and comparatively much lower rates of violent crime and gun crime.
switzerland does have a lot of -- there is a lot of civilian gun ownership, but they register all the guns with the national government. they require guns to be locked in storage safely. there are routine checks of guns in the home. switzerland has one of the highest suicide by firearm rates to the extent that their government is looking to see how they can allow people to have guns but then keep the ammunition separately. it is not without problems. it is not easily comparable to what we do in this country. fundamentally, the idea that if more people were allowed to carry guns and more places we would be safer we have 300 million guns in circulation. we have people carrying guns everywhere. we have one of the worst rates
of gun homicide and suicide compared to any other country. how many more guns do we need to allow before things all of a sudden turn the opposite way? i just understand it. host: people are waiting to know your thoughts on the nra? what techniques does the nra used to block gun control? guest: they have perpetuated a myth that they are all-powerful and any legislator that votes for gum safety measures is going to lose -- gun safety measures is going to lose. in virginia, you have senators you have a governor and an attorney general who are all actively campaigning for gun safety. they still one. -- won. they showed the inner rate is
not the all-powerful entity. it perpetuates here too much. there are simple decisions from the past and we see now on a local level elected officials standing up to the nra in winning their elections and changing that dynamic. host: colleen is in tennessee. caller: thank you for c-span and i am a gun owner. when we going to have someone next who makes a living toward spreading hate. if a person would get a weapon to someone who can't own one does the gift or face a --gofterifter face a penalty? guest: that's a great question.
i want to be sure that i am correct. on the federal level there is no such policy. on a state-by-state basis, there are some laws in place to would criminalize the transfer of a gun to someone who is prohibited from having one, whether it be in your family or elsewhere. there are laws that criminalize the transfer of a family member to a minor who is too young. that is how you see young children find themselves -- guns and shoot themselves or their friends. there needs to be more conversation of what happens when a parent gives a gun to somebody who is going to be irresponsible with it. host: what are the issues that was brought up yesterday it was background checks. he said including guns purchased at gun shows. can you explain that loophole? guest: it is a problem.
it was more often a problem before the age of the internet. gun shows is our publicly advertised, anyone can go. you can buy guns from dealers who are required to do background checks. private dealers are not. they bring the two worlds of the regulated in the unregulated markets right next to each other. you can have a dealer who will do a background check right next to a private seller who can sell the same inventory that not be required a background check. showing those two worlds existing side-by-side is alarming. we have to understand that in the internet age, there are websites which have a gun show
happening everyday. if i buy from this person it i will have to go through a background check or i can click this button and just find people that i can go from -- buy from and not go through a background check. we need to broaden to require not just sales at gun shows, but anytime a grant -- gun is transferred. there should be a background check online and everywhere. host: greg is a gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. how are we doing? my comment and question is, i already wrote a letter to president obama about this. they check us when we get our weapons, why don't they have it like your driver's license. if you are a felon, you cannot buy it.
that would keep a lot of it out of these people's hands. we are still going to have the ones that break into people's homes to get ammunition. let's make it harder for people who don't have guns. if they don't have ammunition, you can't shoot no one. guest: walmart does require background checks. private sales that are facilitated at gun shows or over the internet are part of the problem. people buy guns that are unchecked. their history of domestic abuse won't come up. the seller does not know they are selling to someone who has a criminal background. make sure that they can legally own the gun first. the way we do that is a 92nd background check. host: another gun owner is on
the line for ohio. caller: i just want to point out something i think is missed. this is a simple matter of basic human right to protect yourself. you have a basic human right that is on a bridge of bull. you don't have to die for the convenience of your society. if we had the laws a little bit different, police officers wouldn't die. they will find somebody dead in the cities. that person had a basic right to protect himself. you can't come up and say if we could just get these laws a little bit better. that's nonsense. you've got a right that cannot be abridged. guest: i agree. i do think you have a right to protect yourself. none of which has any effect on
what i'm talking about. there is no one policy that's going to stop all gun crimes. that's just not the way it is. we can reduce the numbers of people shot, the 32 murders that happen every day and the 50 suicides that happen every day. i believe that fundamentally and we can respect the second amendment and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. host: i want to get your thoughts on this pew research report. for the first time in two decades, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. 52% say it's more important to protect the rights who own guns while 46% say it's more important to control gun ownership. guest: i've seen that poll. a lot of that has to do with how it's worded.
controlling gun ownership means a lot of different things. that could mean registration or confiscation. it could mean all sorts of things. for the terms of a practical conversation about policy, a vague term is not on point or helpful. you can pull the same people in say should be do a background check on every gun sale, you will find 80% or 90% support. even nra members poll around 75% supporting background checks. we have to do away with these vague terms and our polling and go to the specific issues. we see the vast majority of americans are already there. host: all gun should be registered and owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with that gun.
that is the point made by a viewer on twitter. caller: good morning. my thing is, you are talking about guns and doing the checklist in all this. a background check means zilch. if you're not checking the person's mental capacity, you're not doing a thing. if a guy walks into a gun shop his record is clean. how'd you know how his mental capacity is? if he's got no record, in 90 seconds he gets a gun. he doesn't know that the guy is looking for power. you are missing it. if you're not doing a mental check, why are you doing a
background check? it's defeating the purpose. guest: even the background checks we do, we do look for criminal records. people who have been a danger to themselves. it's not everyone who has ever seen a psychiatrist. it is something. it does check the hard records that we do have from the mental health system. host: in the 18 states, they do a mental health background check question mark --? guest: it's the same basic check. 18 states require it. all of the sales in this country from a gun dealer require a background check. that is a restraining order domestic violence, a fugitive
from justice, discharge from the military, there are several things that they check for. i think there are eight states in the country that do not send the mental health records to the background check system to be checked. that's a problem. host: who runs that? guest: in most places it's the fbi in west virginia. they operate the database. some places do it internally themselves. our background check system is only as good as the records that we send to it. we need all states to send their records to make sure we are checking as much as we can. host: we've got about 15 minutes left with colin goddard. terry is waiting. good morning. caller: i would just like to ask , i know he has a mother.
i'm a victim of violence. i had an incident where i had to save my life from being raped by someone. if not for that gun, he could have hurt me and hurt my daughter. if i did not have that gun i would not have been able to protect myself. i agree with the caller earlier. we have a right to protect ourselves. from any kind of person or threat that we should have. the government wants to control more of these gun policies it does not stop violence. the bad guys get gun and the good guys have to apply to get a gun.
thank god for me, i was able to protect myself from being killed or hurt and i was able to kill that person. that was not an easy thing to go through. i am still having a hard time getting over it. i was able to save my daughter. to be able to protect myself from any intruder that comes into my house that was the best thing ever. all you people come out whenever there is an incident about control this and control that. chicago has the hardest gun laws and they have the worst homicide in the country. guest: i'm sorry you had an experience like that. i think we can both agree that what we experienced should not happen to anybody else read we have to make this work.
you have the right to self-defense. we all do. i think there are ways that we can support that right and make it harder for people who would harm you or me to easily get their hands on a gun. we are not trying to take guns away from people. we want to keep guns away from people that we know are a danger to themselves or somebody else. that's the conversation that we need to focus on. host: did you grope with guns in your home? guest: i did not. i was in the army rotc. i have been to the gun range and hunted. i think more people should try the shooting experience. when you should a gun for the first time, it will only strengthen your resolve to see that these are incredibly powerful objects that we have to properly regulate and we just can't allow them to sell without
knowing if they can legally own it. i encourage people to have this experience and understand the conversation and understand the technicalities that are required to have this conversation. we can elevate the discourse and have a better discussion. host: brian is in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that this is the only right i know of in the bill of rights that comes into question under states rights. how far does this go? what preventative measures are you putting in so that it doesn't go too far with background checks. as i have heard from doctors
doctors are being asked to ask patients if they have -- own guns. that seems invasive at a certain point. host: what would be reasonable in your mind? caller: there is the question of when it's considered mentally healthy. that's a strong line that we draw. it's a thin line. at what point are we going to say as a country that this is the line in which you have the right that is outlined in the bill of rights, written by the founders? guest: that's a great point. the second amendment is the only one with the words regulated in it.
the conversation is that the supreme court issued that says there is a right to have a gun and protect yourself. there are reasonable laws to keep guns away from dangerous people and out of sensitive areas. currently we have a line drawn. the 1968 gun control act laid out the cases and to situations where someone has taken action that prohibits them from possessing firearms until that conviction is overturned. those are your felony records and your history of domestic violence. if summit he is a fugitive from justice, dishonorably discharged from the military, people at you to kid by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others. the lines are drawn pretty hard. they are drawn may be too far
one way or the other and we should have that conversation. i think it changes over time. we learn more about human behavior and how humans react. it's not something that is just set in stone forever. this should evolve as society does. that's the conversation we are trying to have. we need to update and require the law that says if you are a felon, we don't check people when they buy the gun, what's the purpose of that law? background checks enforce the law that are already -- laws that are already on the books. we to make her that check is happening on all sales. host: we have time for just a few more calls. josh has been waiting in illinois. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i know i am in the minority. the gentleman earlier called, i
just wanted to throw up. if somebody at the church would've had a gun they could have killed him. one of my favorite songs is "take me to church." i can't imagine. the problem is there are too many guns in america. it's as simple as that. unless people want to admit that and i know the gun owners are hell-bent and you want your guns and you went to be able to fire them whatever you want. it makes no sense to me. there are too many guns in america. you look at australia. they had a massacre in the late 90's and their politicians said no more guns and everybody said ok and they haven't had anything since. you look at chicago, they have
strict gun laws, but there are so many people who are got -- killed by gun violence it's insane. until people in america admit that and are willing to face that this problem is just going to get worse. guest: i think there are some good points. i think australia is an interesting history. a lot of colors bring up chicago. it does have a lot of gun homicides and shootings. some of the highest per capita gun death rates are places like alaska and louisiana, places you don't think of it first. that is per capita. that includes homicide and suicide. in chicago, this is a state
where the majority of guns used in crimes don't come from chicago. they come from neighboring states. they are trafficked from outside where there are weaker laws the places where there are stronger laws. the atf has nicknamed the i-95 corridor the iron pipeline. guns are trafficked from states in the south to states in the north with stronger gun laws. they have to go down south and get them and bring them back up. we are making progress on a state level. we need a federal policy to hold states to the same policies and remove pockets of strengths and weaknesses. this will hopefully bring us back to d.c. where the majority of legislatures -- legislators will enact policy to protect every state. host: the president has given 14 speeches on mass shootings.
what you think his legacy is going to be in the gun issue? guest: we had the last major vote on a piece of gun policy since jim brady in the 1990's. despite what the media tells you , we had a majority of senators vote yes on that background check bill. we did not break the 60 vote threshold. in a normal democracy, you've got the 50% to go on. we have not had a committee hearing on the issue is appalling. the present realize there is a problem. the president tries to do everything he can. he pulled together some way people. i met with him after sandy hook.
there is not a lack of things to do. there are so many steps to be taken to improve different parts of this. it's hard to get honed in. the president recognizes the problem. there is only so much the he can do. you need a congress and a legislature that is going to vote and reflect the will of the people. that is the task at hand. they need to bring the will of the people up to match the intensity of groups like the nra to make sure that elected officials know that they vote the right way and they will win. host: homer, good morning. caller: i've been around guns all my life. my next gun was a 410.
i taught gun safety all my life. people don't know how to use them or when to use a gun. most people want to use it when they get that power in their hand. one of the problems is people not necessarily the guns. guest: i think he brings up a great point. we should check people who buy guns. fundamentally, that is why we should do background checks. there are millions of children who live in homes in this country with a gun that is not locked and loaded safely. we have high rates of young children finding guns and
shooting themselves or other people. that has to be a part of this conversation. gun safety encompasses a lot of different things. not only having a gun in your home and storing it safely, when you sell it to someone else, that you know who can legally own it. requiring a background check is one of the most paramount issues of gun safety. host: colin goddard is a senior policy advocate. i appreciate your time this morning. up next, we will talk with conservative columnist ann coulter about her new book everytown for gun safety "adios, america." we will be right back.
>> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to congress. there are color photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information. there are district maps, a map of capitol hill, a look at committees and the cabinet. order your copy today. it's $13.95 list shipping and handling to the c-span store. >> we have the best access to congress. unit of events that shape public policy. every morning we are live with
elected officials policymakers, and journalists. we have your comments. c-span was created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: ann coulter joins us once again. her new book is out. it is called "adios, america." before i get to the book, i want to get your thoughts about the debate since the charleston shooting. we talked about the confederate flag issue and whether it should be removed from the capitol grounds. what your thoughts on that? guest: i think it's completely moronic. this is an awful thing that happened in charleston. luckily it's quite rare.
to jump on this and go back to a litany of liberal talking points that make republicans look bad how about banning the democratic party? they supported the confederate side of the civil war. if we want to do something nice for black people, how about ending immigration that is dumping millions of low-wage workers on the country and taking jobs from african-americans. how about doing nice things. going back to the confederate flag contradictory -- contrary to popular opinion in 1962 it
was the democrats opposing eisenhower and nixon's aggressive civil rights laws. they were insisting on segregation. the civil rights bills were blocked by lyndon johnson for years. it was two years later that he figured out it would be an electoral advantage to propose his own a civil rights bill which was mostly voted for by republicans. why 1962? the bill was introduced by a senator named fritz hollings. it was the sin tenniel of the real fighting in the civil war. it wasn't in opposition to modern-day civil rights laws. if you want to do something nice for blacks, i think we need to
get a handle and stop illegal immigration. and i want immigrants to be the ceo jobs. host: we just spent time talking about the gun control issue. do you think after the charleston shooting their is any momentum for new gun control laws or a debate? guest: no. no. it's over. host: it's over for the long-term? what you think could bring it back? guest: americans understand. the support for the right to defend yourself is such a fundamental aspect of our freedom. they have completely won the debate on the only policy that reduces mass shootings is
concealed carry permits. once again, we have a shooting in a gun free zone. host: her new book is out. it is called "adios, america." it's not just about democrats. you talk about who is to blame for this immigration issue. you say democrats, lobbyists, republican consultants and moneygrubbing churches. guest: the one i think i am most aggressive toward in my book are republicans. it's so idiotic. i would think i had some influence with them, but they are just being stupid. that is the one error in my book. i knew it before i went to press.
it was the subtitle. if you list all the people who want to turn our country into a third world hellhole the list would go on forever. people who came to the country for some reason besides they wanted to come to america and didn't want to emigrate to mexico or honduras or pakistan. i don't know how it's helping them. the only people who want it that way seem to be the left. it punishes america and liberals think america is a very bad at country, racist sex six, -- sexist. we deserve to be punished for having a successful society.
democrats like dumping low-wage workers on the account -- country. the newest immigrants who are quite dependent on government services compared to earlier immigrants and compared to the native population. republicans, i would say they are corrupt but i think they are just idiots. they are looking at their short-term electoral interests. i think this is the same thing the democrats of run on republicans several times. democrats convince republicans that for their electoral success they've got to peel off a small segment of a majority constituency. if that's such a great idea, why don't they ever do that? the democrats say you are not voting for us, we're going to
concentrate on our base. host: ann coulter is our guest. if you would like to join the conversation, phone lines are open. we'll get right to callers. mark is in south dakota. you are on with ann coulter. caller: good morning. i wish other stations would have people on more often. new voters like a lot of the mexicans and other ethnicities will see what republicans and a lot of caucasians are really all about. thank you. host: care to respond? guest: why guess i do. nbc, abc cbs cnn nbc they
will not mention my name. they think i am not good for the cause of liberalism. host: one of the points you make for your book -- in your book is -- what are some examples of that? guest: a big one is when i hear democrats say that the dump of tens of millions of low-wage immigrants who hurt the working class and are taking massive amounts of government assistance, it's great for the economy. this will shore up social security. how will people who take more from the government then they are paying into the government to a great boom for the economy? it's a boom for the wealthy who
hire these people. they get cheap maids and cheap computer programmers. that is being subsidized by the middle class and the working class. it's a great deal for them. the main way that the media plays a game and censors information about immigration is covering up crime. the government does that as well. you knew the race of the shooter at this charleston church. you knew the race of the cop in the ferguson shooting. try to find the immigration status of the long island railroad massacre. that is what much of the book is
about, how the media hides it. government officials will refuse to say. was this an immigrant? i'm sorry, we don't know. why would you ask? host: one passage from the book, our laws for destitute people from backward cultures is a convenience for the 1% elites. that is one passage from her new book. we are talking about it on "washington journal." good morning. caller: it's always very nice to see ann coulter on tv again. thank you for c-span.
here is my point. in regards to the racial murder in north carolina, i want to say to my black brothers, i love them. i have been with them many times in music and in my band. the point is, your next book is right in front of you. that is the democrats have been trying to change history. they can't change it because they can't change the truth. the woman who is on the last segment, i would like to say to her that she screams out loud that there were so many people in the south killing blacks, but it was the northern people and the millions of lives that put
their lives on the line to free the slaves. that is the most ironic thing that i can say to the blacks today. regarding gun control, just think, i would rather see america more armed and less -- than less armed. if isis wants to come in here or russia wants to come in here, have at it. they are going to see one -- if you think iraq was awful or ireland, wait till they come to america and see what we do to them. host: there are several topics for you to choose from a. guest: 600,000 men died during
slavery. it has existed across the globe. it was not always based on race. the northerners died to end the institution of slavery. they were the republicans. they were protecting their homeland. as for china, if only we knew what was happening. instead, we are giving away our country without a shot fire. we have massive debt to the chinese. host: peter is on the line for republicans. caller: it's a pleasure to talk to. i just got your book for father's day. it's great. you tell the truth. the thing i want to say is they
try to label you as a racist but you are really a patriot. that is your concern. i don't think you hate anybody. i hate to see what's going on. nothing is going to change as long as the powerful who control the media, they want this. they own the politicians. the thing that we need to do to fix this, and i agree with you, we need to make e-verify the law. there should be stiff penalties. but that fence up. anybody who overstays their visa spends a year in jail. anybody coming over the border a second time does three to five years in jail. you will see how quick this will end and people like mitt romney says they will self-support. god bless you. guest: you are very lucky to get
that wonderful book. of the many hate campaigns waged against me, accusing me of being anti-woman, anti-somatic anti-gay, i have never been called a racist. anyone who reads my book will see that would be a difficult case to make. it was barbara jordan who during the clinton administration came out for a virtual moratorium on new immigration. a lot of her argument was how policy has been devastating to african-americans. one of the points made in my
book is the idea that people who arrived yesterday and demand the same civil rights and special treatment that black americans deserve. given the black experience in america, the reason that we have civil rights laws and the reason there was affirmative action was because of the legacy of slavery. it was the legacy of jim crow laws. they were passed by the democratic party. that is something america has to remedy. somebody who arrived in 2000, we didn't do anything to you. if you have grievances, go home. you have these parasite losers from around the world piggybacking on the black experience. i think serious black leaders
have recognized that and been on my side. host: the line for democrats is up next. caller: good morning. i met you years back. i have done it hire paperwork at a corporate retail chain for many years. nearly every employer i know, whether it's local or a big massive retail chain all over this country they are hard-core right-wing conservatives. every one of them would hire illegal immigrants if they could. i -- they would sell their soul to the devil for cheap labor. wall street conservative
business interests align themselves with southern conservative democrats to fight against civil rights. there is a lot to go into the mix when you want to blame the left for everything. it's business that has always sought cheap labor. the server scale has been held down since 1981. when you look at retail chains if people do menial to cops -- -- jobs -- guest: i am not blaming it all on the left. i am blaming it on the employers. corporate america -- capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them. not all business interests --
some of them are lovely. your history is wrong. we believe that part aside. a lot of corporate america they don't care about american culture or american tradition. they want to make their pile and retire. the people this hurts our ordinary americans. recent immigrants are heard. crats don't care about recent emigrants. they just want the votes. republicans want the campaign cash. businesses want to cheap labor. the rich yuppies want their cheap nannies. host: the last chapter of your book, you focus on the practiced liars in the republican party and go through much of the current presidential field. who is saying the right things on this issue? guest: as of last week, donald
trump. i don't think he will be our nominee. i'm glad he's out there raising this as an issue. this may be the only way it's injected into the conversation. i would hope my book, 80 that would get people talking about these poor people being dumped -- maybe that would get talk going about these poor people. maybe we will get people talking about it. the plausible likely nominees, i would like mitt romney to get back in. he had the best position on immigration since dwight eisenhower. he was very aggressive on illegal immigration as governor of massachusetts.
he made a compassionate policy, he was denounced for it. we will force employers to hire americans. when the jobs dry up, the immigrants will go home the same way they came. what you going to do? round them all up? nobody is saying that except for me. we did not have to round them up to get them here. we don't have to round them up to take them home. there will be no rounding up. they will go home the same way they came. i think republican primary voters were lied to about mitt romney.
not when you have the best position on immigration. without controlling who gets to live in america, republicans lose everything. the entire country becomes california. barack obama would not have been elected in 2008 with the mass hysteria over his candidacy, he would not have been elected 30 years ago. it is a demographic change. it allowed him to be a -- elected. unless you want to turn america into the soviet union. none of this could have happened but for immigration. host: we are talking about her new book.
a caller on twitter says this. you can follow along on twitter. caller: i just love your ability to skewer the hypocrites on the left. now, i'm glad you are doing it to the democrats, as well as now the republicans. i put them both pretty much in the same boat. i would be happy to put an end to any borders -- open the doors to anyone, as long as the government did not have a welfare state to attract the worst. if they came here, they would have to -- anyone who came here would have to get a long on their own abilities instead of
the government. one thing i really wanted to say about gun control -- i think that having a man on like you had an earlier and having obama talk about gun control is the greatest thing for the manufacturers. every time they do it, americans run out to the gun store and buy more ammo and guns, before they can be prevented by the politicians. guest: he is absolutely right about that. i have also at the things artillery related -- that i don't want, and don't think i will use but -- never mind. as far as the twitter remark, absolutely. we need a 10 year. that is what i call for in my
book, which i did not plan to propose. why don't we scour the bo world and get the best people to come hre. having written the book, there are so many organizations, and that is where the left, in my subtitle, comes in. really, i think no one can contest anti-american organizations. george soros, the aclu, organizations that spend most of their time telling us that america is racist, sexist, homophobic, and peerless narcissistic, and for some reason they want to bring all of these innocent third is into our country. they are using animation to punish america -- using
immigration to punish america. when you see organizations working overtime to bring the poorest of the poor to america they are the ones that staff the immigration bureaucracy. you think, why don't we just passed a law saying that immigrants can't get welfare. how about, when countries will not take back their criminals which happens to be a big problem, thus the hundreds of murders committed by deportable criminal aliens -- released because the home countries would not take them. no, we are leaving the rapist and murderer is with you, america. how about we say we cut off all visas from those countries. this is in the law. english-language requirement. all of these laws have been passed. they get overturned or a
ignored, or simply not enforced. both the bush and the obama administration -- a federal judge will say, no, you cannot do this. since the carter and administration we have swearing-in ceremonies for citizenship in this country conducted in spanish. spanish is a fine language. i love mexican food. this is a country. we are not a battered woman's shelter. we are taking the hardest cases and suddenly these small school district don't have money for a christmas pageant. we are spending all of our money on immigrant services. i might add, this is a cost that the eye leads are willing to pay, the rich are willing to pay, because they are not paying it. it does not happen at their fancy private schools. you do not have the poor immigrant hotbeds showing up in places like san francisco, new york, palm springs.
no, the wealthy places in america are white and getting wider, while the suburbs are filling up. host: linda has been waiting on a lie for democrats. good morning. caller: i have to say, i guess anybody who writes a book these days can get on "washington journal." i cannot believe you have ann coulter on who a racks and credibility from anyone in the media these days. you are one of the most divisive people that i have ever seen. instead of tried to encourage americans to be americans, you focus on nothing but liberal this -- democrats that. i never hear anything good out of your mouth. you are an embarrassment to the bar. host: do you care to respond? guest: i believe that something talking points on relevant to
our conversation, which i have now set in virtually every answer. i think you're very first question to me was how i talk about democrats, leads, wall street, and more. yes, it must have been a tough decision for "washington journal" -- i have written 11 books, all 11 have been bestsellers. i am the female bob woodward. if i was a liberal i would be too busy accepting awards from the kennedy center and posing for the cover of vanity fair. i would probably be on a postage stamp. thank you "washington journal" for having me on. host: i think we have had you on on your last book that you have written, and answered questions from viewers like john. life for republicans. good morning. caller: it is a pleasure to
speak to you. david horowitz refers to you as a national treasure, and i agree with that wholeheartedly. since 1986, we have had sufficient time to secure our borders and protect us from this influx of illegal aliens. we have a right as a sovereign country to define and defend our borders. this is so fundamental, i can't understand why people don't know it. we have had enough time since that act was passed to do what we had to do. the conversation has become so muddled by the idiots who control the media that it is hard for me to understand it. i can only attribute it to the negativity of the american people. i want to thank you very much. i hope the viewers here, those
who feel similarly will spread the gospel, so to speak, and tell everybody about your book. it is essential that we come to grips with this problem. i want to thank you again so much, ann coulter, and the best to you. guest: thank you. host: we would love to get you to explain one of the key stats that you talk about in your book. 30 million mexicans is the title of that chapter. what you believe the number of illegal immigrants is not 11 million they get cited so often. guest: i think they can try to do that fairly quickly. first, i want to say, michael if you are watching in the next room, i am incinerating. could you possibly turn of the conditioning. sorry. usually i am always cold. 30 million is an extremely lowball estimate. first of all, just out of common
sense, we have been told over the last decade that it is 11 million. one more has not come over the border in that time? on closer examination, for one thing, there was a study by a couple analyst back in 2005 and they were advising people about something important, their money. people who have illegal aliens that have traecked thousands of miles, left their families behind run from border police, stolen social security cards are not going to answer government survey. all of the 11 million figures that we have heard over and over again, and every group comes to the same estimate. that is because they all start with the same raw data, which is from the census department. pew research, they met, we are
going by the census data. there is a lot of evidence that illegal immigrants do not in fact answer government surveys. what the two analyst looked at was other indicators of how many illegal immigrants there are. for example, remembrances from america -- remittances from america being sent back to mexico. at this point, that is $20 million per year. more than what we send mexico and foreign aid. that is $20 billion being vacuumed out of the american economy. they looked at the increase in romances, -- in remittances. and housing permits that were drawn. after a lengthy study, in 2005 they estimated that there were at least 20 million illegal aliens. that was 10 years ago.
the very next year, too famous liberal investigative report is for time magazine, they are pulitzer prize-winning journalist, quite famous. you can look them up on wikipedia. pilots and steel -- barlitz and steal. he estimated that in 2006, 3 million americans would enter the country. if it continued at that rate -- that would make it 50 million. i thought that was too much. i will not estimate at the height and. let's just say, given that some come in and some go back, let's say it has been one million per year since 2005. that puts you at 30 million. i would say it is between 30 million and 50 million.
this is all explained and heavily footnoted and just a few pages of my book. host: the book, "adios america" is the title. kate is up next on the line for democrats, athens, ohio. good morning. caller: i am glad you have an n on. i want to ask you. if you were to put up a graph of over the decades, say under reagan bush 43, clinton bush 41 as far back as you would want to go -- could you tell us about the influx of illegal immigrants under both republican and democrats administrations. can you talk to us about why we don't see -- i'm not against immigration at all. of course the question would be to you, where did your great-great-grandparents come from.
i'm sure you have had that ask. talk about the graphs of immigration under different ministrations. host: your thoughts? guest: not much different, but in the 19 a six election when clinton was running for reelection and activists adjusted, if we could just produce votes and chicago from immigrants, we could produce votes for democrats. the year before clinton's reelection, when the inf was being turned into -- a democratic voter mel. one million new citizens and just the year before clinton
became president. in order to get one million new registered voters, since 1970, immigrants have voted 8-2 for the democrats. they had to make citizens of felons, convicts rapists murderers. needless to say, the english language requirements was jettisoned in this effort to get a lot of democratic voters on the role. we have seen a massive surge at the border under the obama administration. in fact, the obama administration is flying in central americans directly so that they do not have to walk. straight into the interior of america. republicans do it out of stupidity and corruption, and the need of their donors for cheap labor, but democrats are moving the men for the votes. i promise you. if reason immigrants voted 8-2
for the republicans rather than democrats, chuck schumer and obama would be down there with the minutemen. they are doing get just for the votes. the people that they claim to champion -- african americans and recent immigrants. host: you mentioned chicago illinois in your last answer. melissa is waiting in chicago line for independents. caller: hi ann. i'm so happy that you are on. i look forward to reading your book. i know it is a little more nuanced than the title suggests. my question is what is your take on what is happening in the dominican republic right now. i do not know if you are aware, but to summarize, they have gone in and said that all of the descendents of immigrants from haiti are no longer going to be
considered citizens. they are now look at supporting -- supporting people of haitian descent. i am wondering what your take is on that. guest: that is a great question. look around the world. no other country does what america does. i have a whole chapter saying why can we not have israel's policy on immigration? they put up a fence. guess what, it worked. it is working beautifully. they say, this is a country. if we just let everyone in to our society, it would not be that successful anymore. it is not doing anyone any favors. recently i think it is normally cracking down on immigrants. meanwhile, italy is being absolutely overwhelmed. it is just madness. this idea that americans seem to think that we are a hospital --
a public hospital in an urban neighborhood. just because someone needs our help, we are required to take them in. no. this is a lifeboat. we are thinking if this does not stop soon. no country has been same policies that we have. the idea of immigration like any other policy ought to be to help people who already live here. we cannot take the world sport -- world's poor. how many people live in the world? four or 5 billion? there are a people who live on two dollars per day. i'm sure they would like to access on welfare programs. we cannot do that. at what point do we stop. the rich and elites, the well-heeled will be ready to draw up the drawbridge as soon
as they have all the servants that they would possibly want. i think for average americans, the time came one decade ago. there is still time to start now. host: let's get in lewis from indiana. caller: good morning. i live in indiana, and the republican party has a super majority. about 40 years ago, they try to tighten the immigration laws. it was going to pass, but just like the religious freedom act that we signed into law, the chamber of commerce comes in and when the chamber of commerce speaks, republicans choke a bit. maybe it is time for a third party. not democratic party orb republican, but an american party. guest: it may be coming to that point. i hate to say that because generally what a third-party
does is hard the republican party. although i kind of hate the republican party right now, i do think we are a two-party system, and that is only hope about doing anything for immigration. oh my gosh, the caller is right. the 2014 election, there was no question. that was about stopping obama's immigration amnesty. mitch mcconnell said, if you want to stop this, the promise on amnesty, you have to vote for republicans. tom cotton and arkansas took out an incumbent senator. you have dave brat taking out a leader in the house. there was no issue that was as important. then, they get elected, and the first thing they do is fund obama's emba amnesty.
now they come up with this trade deal. look, the political consultants who really want to just make money for themselves and like corporations, do not much care -- most of them don't care what happens to the country or to the client, they just want the easy money. they always say to the republican clients, do not worry about conservative, they have nowhere else to go. what will they do, vote democrat? conservatives do have another option. they will stay home. right now, the republican party and congress -- in congress could not be doing more to drive conservative voters to stay home. pushing this preposterous trade deal. the idea that this has anything to do with free-trade is preposterous.
go to walmart and see if we are having any trouble getting other countries products shipped in here or if we are get having trouble sending our products elsewhere. this is not about free trade. this is about turning over corporate jurisdiction to international courts, and more than anything, it is backdoor amnesty. corporations can say, we need to thousand pakistanis working here, sorry, americans, you are fired. it is outrageous that republicans -- not all of them -- but so outrageous that they are doing this. we are edging up to the point where we will have a third-party. a third-party my do pretty well. host: we will talk a little bit about what is happening today on trade legislation in our next segment. i want to get in log, the last
caller in the segment. erie, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, and thank you for your courage. it takes a lot of courage to sling some arrows to the left. i want you to consider for your next book the stats on why we believe that republicans are not racist. why we think our policies actually help i know it is. you can start with immigration and how illegal immigrants are taking jobs that especially blacks might be able to have, but go on to the social issues. we have been talking about black life matters -- black lives matter. if we were basis, we would join planned parenthood. let's account for 13% of the population but 33% are killed in abortions.
we think black lives matter, so if we were races, we would join them. also about school choice -- obama since his kids to private schools, but he tells minority children, who deserve an education in a school that is worthy, but they do not allow it. do step-by-step on why our policies would actually help minorities, all minorities -- black, white hispanic. guest:.: got it. i think you are being a little defensive. of course republican policies help african-americans. i think i wrote that book but without your defensive tone. why are you being defensive about it? it is not that we are not
racist, it is that democrats are based is -- democrats are racist. host: on your website to buy your book, you can also buy a companion book to ship to members of congress. any sense of how many of those have been sent to capitol hill? is capitol hill reading your book? guest: i suspect they are burning my book. i know a lot has been sent because i have boxes and boxes just delivered yesterday to my apartment. i cannot even move in my apartment because they need me to sign more. i know hundreds. it is fantastic. for only $6016, in addition to
the collectible copy, you can send a copy to members of congress. i mention it was a few weeks late, but we finally issued my audiobook. it was so hard to tame because of all of the comical foreign names. i read it myself. it is all in there. that is now available on amazon too. host: we appreciate time this morning on "the washington journal." guest: thank you. host: we will be right back. in our last segment, we will revisit this question of removing the confederate five on the south carolina capitol grounds. you can call now if you oppose or support that move and a special light for south carolina
residents. we will be right back. like many of us, first families take the occasion time. what better book than one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady in history. "first ladies" -- inspiring stories of the fascinating woman that entered the scrutiny of the white house. a great summer read. available now a favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back on the revisiting this question. we asked our viewers earlier, do support efforts to remove the
confederate flag from the south carolina capitol grounds. it is a story that has made the front page of all the major newspapers this morning in wake of the announcement from the south carolina governor, nikki haley, that she supports removing of the flag. there is a photo of nikki haley, tim scott, lindsey graham. someseveral members of the south carolina delegation. here is the front page of "the los angeles times." south carolina governor calls for removal of confederate banner at the statehouse. this headline from the "chicago tribune" this morning. nikki haley, and her statement yesterday about taking down the fog said that this an issue --
about taking down the flag said that this is an issue that south carolina and south carolina alone will decide. [video clip] governor haley: this is south carolina's historic moment. this will be south carolina's decision. for those outside of our stay, the flag may be nothing more than the worst of america's past . that is not what it is to many south carolinians. the state house belongs to all of us. their voices will be heard. host: not just south carolinians, but national groups and companies are weighing in on this discussion. here is a headline. walmart said in a statement on monday that it is removing all items promoting the confederate fyke for sale from its stores and website.
we want to get our viewers' thoughts this morning. melanie is up first and pennsylvania. melanie is not with us. you can call in if you support removing the flag from the statehouse grounds, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . a special line for south carolina residents, (202) 745-8002. we will get to your calls in just a second. i want to talk about the trade discussion that is happening today on capitol hill. scott wong is with "the hill" newspaper. remind us where we are today on the fast-track trade authority that the president has been pushing for. guest: shure. this is crunch time for
president obama's trade agenda. right now, it looks like the fast-track bill, known as tpa as we have been referring to it, it looks like it has the momentum to clear the key procedural hurdle in the senate, and head to the president's desk for his signature. i will not say it is a done deal yet, but the votes seem to be heading in a positive direction. democrats need about 11 or 12 democrats to join with republicans. they need to get to the magic number of 60. it is really a remarkable turnaround for the fast-track deal. just one week and a half ago it was nearly dead. we saw house democrats rebuke their party leader, president obama, and vote down a critical trade provision that nearly killed the entire trade pack
age. through our lot of lobbying from the president and gop leaders they were able to resuscitate her and get it back on track. host: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell asked senators to be consistent with their previous votes. who are the anti-fast-track supporters targeting here in the senate? doing know of any vote switchers this time around? guest: so far, we have not heard of any vote switches. it will be hard for the 14 democrats or so who supported the package last time around to flip-flop, and all of a sudden will against fast-track. i think a lot of supporters are counting on that political cap
elation -- cap elapulations. it will be difficult for middle-of-the-road democrats to oppose president obama. for many of these democrats they served with president obama when he was in the senate. they tend to have a pretty close relationship with the president. they know this is one of his signature legacy items before he heads out of office. they are under a lot of pressure on both sides. it will be very difficult for them to flip-flop on this boat and all of a sudden oppose it. host: before we let you go, we want to get your comments on a story that you published on "the hill" website. can you talk about what is going
on in the republican ranks in the house. guest: related to the fast-track deal, a couple of weeks ago, when the bill came out on the house side, we saw a number of conservative republicans oppose the rule that would allow the bill to hit the floor. these are typically procedural votes, typically noncontroversial votes. in this case, nearly three dozen republicans voted against the rule nearly preventing the rule from reaching the floor. leadership specifically speaker boehner, was very upset about that. he gave a speech last week saying, we need to be a team and people who vote against rules are not part of a team. we started seeing punishment and
retribution doled out. just over the weekend, we learn the subcommittee chairman on the oversight committee was removed from his post for voting against the rule. we are starting to see speaker boehner and his allies get people in line when it comes to these important procedural votes. host: and reaction to the effort to remove mark meadows from that position, ted cruz writing on his twitter page that what happened to him is shameful, no one should be punished for voting his or her conscience. scott long of "the hill" newspaper we appreciate you updating us on what is happening on capitol hill. we are talking with our viewers for the last 25 minutes or so about your thoughts on removing the confederate fight from the south carolina statehouse.
here is a headline from "usa today" on this issue. craig is up first from savannah, georgia on the line of those who support removing the fight from the statehouse grounds. good morning. caller: we are just going to let the bills take place and nikki haley is just getting a little ahead of the storm that is coming. we are going to do things a little different this time. we are going to tell people not to come to charleston to myrtle beach, to gas up in north carolina and georgia, and passed right through south carolina. we don't have any hate for the young man who committed the murder. we do hate the fact that they fly that fly constantly. host: you are talking about a boycott. who is we? caller: i might be letting the
cat out of the bag, but she knows this is coming. people are respectful of the dead. for all these politicians to come and give -- scott, and now lindsey graham -- this is the going on for the longest. we are going to do things different this time. they understand money. we are going to ask, don't buy ford, don't buy fvolvo. when they start losing economically i think we can get this flagged down.
the guy just put the heritage foundation. he was a former senator before scott. we are going to put an end to this racist thing altogether. what does it is dollars. that is what south carolinians really understand. we have folks that come down here that do not have school kids in the school system that particular the school boards. you will see in the next few weeks a seachange. it is coming. host: jim is up next from south carolina. your thoughts this morning? caller: am i being heard ok? host: yes, sir. caller: it is rather difficult for me to speak after all of that hatred and nonsense that i just heard from georgia. the flag is coming down, the
governor has already announced that, and she has power to do that. there is no need for rabble rousing. i've over 80 years old and born and lived in south carolina most of my life. that means you are listening from someone who grew up in a totally segregated state. i never want to school in public school or lived alongside any of the blacks. i want to say, since i was never told to hate and fear, i have always had a love for all of my black brothers and sisters, just the same as our white ones. i very happy the flag is coming down. it is like the swastika for europe. thank you. host: members of congress, as it was noted, tweeting out their reaction to the press conference yesterday. here is senator john mccain
saying, very proud of governor nikki haley, lindsey graham, and tim scott for the statement supporting the removal of the confederate fight. bernie sanders says, the confederate fight is a relic of our nation's stained racial history, it should come down. and from jim cooper, south carolina should remove the confederate that of fight from its capital, and tennessee should remove the bust of forest inside our capital. one more tweet. ryan's previous -- reince priebus, proud to stand in south carolina today with nikki haley. richard is up next from massachusetts on the line of those who oppose the five removal -- flag's removal. caller: when the north front the
south, it was not because of slavery. it was because the north had factories that could not compete with the south factories because of slave labor. they did not care about the blacks. i will tell you, what is going to happen now, when the economy crashes, you will see serious crimes. 20% of people who have money in this country are white. they are not going to hire the blacks or hispanics. they are going to really see some wars break out. host: edward is up next on the line of those who support the fi flag's removal. caller: i have so happy the flag is being removed. i think we should take a look at all of our state flags. host: that discussion happening now in mississippi, where we noted earlier that one of the
key leaders they're calling for the removal of the fight -- or changing of the flag. we are speaking physically about the south carolina fike. here is a headline from "washington post." lisa is up next from south carolina. good morning. caller: my family came to south carolina in the 1750's. i definitely see the confederate flag in a way that is hard for most others to understand. history is history. removing the fight my change the history of south carolina. it will not change people's hearts and minds. most confederate soldiers came from families they did not own slaves. there are a few people owned many slaves.
the civil war of was very much about slavery, but those boys, and many of them work 18-19 years old, and fighting to defend their homeland. they did not want the north telling them what to do. it was about slavery, but also about states rights. the whole issue makes me very sad that people do not understand history better, and they certainly do not understand the history of south carolina. host: a lot of discussion in today's papers on the history of the confederate battle fight. "the washington post" showing an evolution of that flag. also in today's "usa today" --
we want to get your thoughts this morning. james from fort worth, texas, you are up next. caller: i don't believe they ought to take the flight down. if they do, they should take history and bury it too. thank you. host: john is up next from north carolina on the line of those who support. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to say, i tried to get on an earlier session, and no one answered. host: you are on now, go ahead. caller: the flag in south carolina needs to come down. there is no states rights issue here. this flag was never a representative flag of south
carolina. it was a flag of the northern state of virginia. it was not even a battle fight. it was a navy flag. the fact that it flies over the state house is a tragedy. the state house is the representative body of all the people. native americans, first of all. blacks, and whites. for the lady who said those boys fall for states rights, the only rights were for the secessionist in the state of south carolina which continued as a stays late -- slave state. all flies need to come down, including north carolina, where i live.
host: in the history of the evolution of the confederate fight, the final passage of it says that what we know today as the confederate flag is a combination of the battle fight's colors with the second navy jack design. civil rights groups say the flag represents the south lost willingness to fight a war in the name of slavery. ken, you are on. caller: i think the fight should be removed if the legislators vote to remove it. we have to be real careful. today, it is the confederate fight. tomorrow, it will be the crosses on the churches because we are
defending muslims. i think the flag ought to be removed. i think we have to be real careful with the way we remove it. host: norman is up next from new york, new york opposed to removing the flag. caller: i'm sorry, i'm in favor of removing the fight. i just want to say that all the black soldiers who fought for this country, they did not fight for the individual flies of each day. they fought for one flag only which is the red, white, and blue flag. another thing i want to say is that all of these blacks who have fought in every war, you name it, they were there. they should get all the benefits of fighting. they should all be well off wealth ap will -- wealthy people.
host: reports coming in this morning about the capitol visitor center here on capitol hill being evacuated. the street coming from the capitol visitor center. we will update you with information if we get here before the end of the show. that is what is happening here. the underground visitor center underneath the capitol complex on the east side. kathy in south carolina, you are up next. caller: good morning. the reason that i opposed this being debated at this particular moment is because this was debated 15 years ago. there was an agreement made with the naacp and the state of south carolina that it would fly where it remains right now. basically what we are telling everybody is that the nine innocent lives because of this one lunatic represents south
carolina and the history of the civil war. they are not willing to do anything with any of the other historical parts of south carolina because people associated with racism, but it has nothing to do with that. it is a shameful thing that politics have come in in a time when these families are trying to bury their loved ones over this massacre that took place to suit their own agenda, when this was already debated 15 years ago, and they cannot let this breast. -- rest. host: you are in south carolina, do you plan to be involved in the debate that will happening. there has to be a vote to remove that from the capital ground. caller: yes, there are a bunch of us that are going.
we are completely disrespecting and paying attention to the sons of the confederacy who it means something different to them. america is about finding a common ground. nothing will ever make anyone 100% happy. if we can come to a compromise -- and now we have political leaders coming in from the outside and tried to take away the compromise that was done that would appease both parties. it no longer flies above the capital, it is on the monument on the ground. host: several editorials in several newspapers including "the washington post" and "the new york times" advocating for the flight to be taken down.
i hope, is coming down. it should have never been put up in 1961. thank you for taking on this debate. thank you. host: i also want to point viewers to "usa today" piece by ben carson talking about the church shooting. "let's call this sickness what it is" ben carson writes in his piece. tony is up next. columbus, georgia. line for those who support removing the confederate battle fight. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a retired u.s. army
lieutenant. i support the removal of the flag. when that flag was used, it was in defiance of any forward progress. now is the time to remove it. i support that. those who support the fight, i challenge them to fire at their home. i doubt they will. host: robert is up next from arlington heights, illinois, on the line of those who oppose removing the five. caller: sometimes politicians like to take it manage of situations like this to divide the country, obtain laws, prevent people from own guns. i think obama has to look at his own backyard in chicago. we have had 30,000 black kids shoe one another since 2000.
he is using this issue to divide the country. this crazy guy in south carolina was mentally deranged. he shot these people, which i totally against, but this is ways and means were hesitant -- for him to obtain some public support for his gun narrative. to push his agenda in regards to guns. this flight does not represent racism. it represents those guys dying in the south. they did not even own slaves. going back to the point that the one woman was making about over 600,000 people died in that war -- remember, that flag is removing history.
you can remove the fire, but the history will still be there. i think it is pitiful that obama, every time there is an issue like that, he puts his beak in. in chicago, they have all the gun laws in the world, but the kids still shoot one another. host: let's head back to south carolina, rock hill. david is waiting. good morning. caller: i was just like to say that i agree, they need to bring the flag down. they also need to go through our military parks and take all the confederate memorabilia down. all of those monuments down. also these confederate graveyards that they have all over the south, they need to take down all those tombstones that have the rebel fired on them.
they need to get a bulldozer and just bulldoze over all the monuments and all the gravestones in these confederate cemeteries across the south. you have many many of them. there's one over here near rock hill. that is what they need to do. just get rid of it all. that way we would not have any problem. if we are race and from our memory, then we will not have any problem with the confederate flag anymore. host: what is your experience going up in rock hill with that five? we lost david. jennifer is up next in alabama line for those who oppose removing the flag. the morning. caller: good morning. i am opposed to it. i think, for historical reasons, the war was fought. good or bad, right or wrong, it
was fought. people need to study their histories. there were good people on both sides. north and south who fought in the war. some slaveowners, their children went and fought. i understand that. we cannot lose the historical sense of the fight. -- the flag. i have seen it used for good and bad. i know good people who do not hate people who display that fight. i know people who use it as hatred and displaye the flag. growing up in alabama, i have seen it used in both ways. host: can you use an example. what is the time that you saw it used for good? caller: i know of people that would give you the shirt off their backs that are good and decent people, but still have
southern pride, you could say. they do not hate people. host: what do you mean, "used for good"? caller: may be displayed at their home, or displayed in other ways that the person has displayed the flag. i can tell you, there is a confederate soldier buried at a church i go to. there is a flag put on his grave. i don't know who put it there. it may be a good decent person. the fact of the matter remains that there were more americans killed in that war than any war we have ever experienced. there is a history that should be studied. i challenge people. study your history. i challenge teachers, professors. please, get into that war and studying it.
there is so much about it that needs to be studied. there is an ignorance in this country concerning our history. i have ancestors that are cherokee indians. they were forced off their land by andrew jackson for the good of america under the american flag. i love my country still. i do not have any resentment for that. has been good and bad done under all funds. -- all flags. i would challenge people, please study your history. host: time for just a couple of more calls. frank is in pennsylvania, the line for those whose support removing the flag.
caller: good morning to you. i think it is a disgrace. if they want to keep the flag, why did it not fly at half mast like the rest of the flag's? that just goes to show you, if it was really about anything that was good -- you know, when you fight wars, every time when the defeating forces lose, you at least take your flight down and go about your business. this one, despite the fact that the american flag was at half mast -- i do not think it would be that much controversy if it was at half mast like the rest. host: i think one of the report says that it could not physically be lowered. but you say, they should have a way to lower it to half mast. caller: that was going to be
my next point. it is in a fixed position. why can't they put it a position to where can be a bird and lowered. host: anita is our last caller. caller: good morning. i have always been under the impression that this was supportive of slavery, which meant that one human race was considered 3/5 human. that is part of the history that i do not want displayed. it means that someone else is not a whole human being. as far as the american flag and things that have happened under the current fight, as far as violence, the american public has to participate in the government more so they can watch what the government is doing and so they will not have to suffer so much